like us 

Local Government Commission

Open Space

 

Americans cherish “wide open spaces.” A national survey conducted in 2000 by the nonprofit Smart Growth America showed that 83 percent of participants favored the establishment of “no-development” zones for green space, agriculture, and forests outside existing cities and suburbs. A special 2001 survey on growth by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that traffic congestion (29 percent), high housing costs (27 percent), and urban sprawl and the loss of open space (24 percent) were perceived as the most negative consequences of state population growth.

Conserving open space is possible through a wide array of tools including urban growth boundaries; caps on local population growth; voter approval of annexations; agricultural zoning; and conservation easements. However, none of these tools can be truly effective while the overall development pattern continues to be low-density.

The economic benefits associated with community and regional open space are considerable. Reports by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the Trust for Public Land, and the National Park Service have revealed the links between agriculture and tourism in many states, as well as the positive effects of local trails and parks on property values. Open space is also factored into any assessment of a community’s quality of life, which in turn affects local economic development and other matters that affect a community's long-term viability and health.

Low-density, sprawling development uses up raw land at a faster rate than any other form of urban growth. According to the American Farmland Trust, increasing gross residential density from three to six dwellings per acre would preserve 1.5 million acres of agricultural land and open space in California's Central Valley alone by the year 2040. Infill development, using vacant or underused lots in existing urban areas, represents another efficient land-use strategy.

Density brings many other bonuses. As density increases above six units per acre, community transit systems become more cost-effective. Combined with mixed-use zoning, this more compact development also facilitates active commuting, improved mobility, and a more active street life.

Consumer demand exerts a major influence on land use and community economic development. While the trend of the last 60 years has favored, low-density, automobile-oriented suburban growth, “recent market research indicates that up to 40 percent of households surveyed in selected metro areas want to live in walkable urban areas,” says Christopher Leinberger, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. This “new urban movement” has accelerated as energy costs have soared. Many suburban areas became blighted by unoccupied and rundown homes that have been foreclosed.

Clearly, compact communities must also be designed attractively, with high-quality pedestrian infrastructure, including shaded sidewalks; narrow streets to conserve land and calm traffic; retail buildings with windows and doors on street frontages; and street and trail systems that afford high connectivity. Such compact communities also suggest increased open space provision in residential areas, especially in the form of neighborhood parks.

Resources

Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Development. This document, published in 1995 and updated in 2001, discusses the importance of revitalizing older parts of our communities and preserving open space and agricultural land.

The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development: An Implementation Guidebook. This document, based on 15 principles for smart economic development assembled by the LGC in 1997, addresses the importance of compact development and open space preservation.

Designs and Codes that Reduce Crime around Multifamily Housing.
Fact Sheet | Example Guidelines and Codes

Web Links